East Providence to challenge decision on Pond View recycling

Thursday

Aug 22, 2013 at 12:01 AM

EAST PROVIDENCE — The city won’t give up its fight against the recycling of construction and demolition debris waste at the Pond View property in Rumford.On Tuesday, the City Council voted to challenge...

Richard Salit Journal Staff Writer richsalit

EAST PROVIDENCE — The city won’t give up its fight against the recycling of construction and demolition debris waste at the Pond View property in Rumford.

On Tuesday, the City Council voted to challenge a recent decision by Superior Court Judge Sara Taft-Carter that found that the city had erred in determining that the business was in violation of its 1998 zoning variance.

The 3-to-2 vote reflected conflicting comments during the meeting. Some residents said the city should cease spending more money in its years-long legal battle against Pond View, while others said the city should keep battling against a business they regard as a neighborhood nuisance.

Taft-Carter’s Aug. 2 decision overturned a decision by the Zoning Board of Review, which had affirmed zoning officer Edward Pimental’s original violation notice.

The last operator of the business, TLA Pond View, shut down last September after going into receivership. Its heavy equipment and other assets were sold off at auction in December.

But receiver John O. Mancini, along with landlord Kenneth Foley, appealed the Zoning Board’s decision to Superior Court. Mancini views the property lease and state license as assets that can be sold on behalf of creditors. Foley, who sold the business to TLA in 2008, is currently operating a metals-reclamation business on the property.

Pimental had ordered the company to curtail hours, reduce processing to the 150-ton limit of the original variance, cease accepting such unapproved materials as metals and concrete, eliminate open storage of materials in unapproved locations and replace an earthen berm with landscaping.

But Taft-Carter determined that Pimental and the Zoning Board had inappropriately looked to the application and site plan supporting the 1998 variance instead of restricting its findings to conditions specifically established in the variance itself.

City Solicitor Timothy Chapman said the first step for the city would be to file a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the case. In all likelihood, the motion would be opposed by lawyers for the receiver and Foley.

“We hope to do it within the month,” Chapman said.

He will receive assistance from appellate lawyer Lauren Jones, who would be retained by the city. Chapman declined to estimate how much the case could cost, saying, “That will be discussed” with the council.